Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Kumar on 13 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : DJ (COMMERCIAL-11)
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 74/2021
FIR No. : 493/2014
Under Section : 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC
& Section 3 PDPP Act
Police Station : Timarpur
CNR No. : DLCT01-001545-2021
State Versus 1. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Krishan Ram
R/o Village Dihi, PO Dhara
District West Champaran, Bihar
2. Naveen Kumar
S/o Dr. Ram Pratap
R/o Village Singha, PS Ramkulr
District Khushi Nagar, U.P.
3. Rajesh Kumar (PO)
S/o Sh. Krishan Dev
R/o Vill. Bank Colony, H. No. 38
Gali No. 4, Nali RD, Bihar
Also at: B-53, Ground Floor
Gandhi Vihar, Delhi
4. Bijendar Singh
S/o Sh. Baldev Singh
R/o Vill. Tarikam Pur Roop Chand
Post Qazi Wala, PS Kotwali City
District Bijnor, U.P.
Also at: C-50, Gali No. 6
Village Wazirabad, Delhi
5. Kamlesh Kumar Thakur
S/o Sh. Vidya Sunder Thakur
R/o Village Rakhavani Bhola
Nath Bhawan School Para
District Dumka, Jharkhand
6. Vikash Pandey
S/o Sh. C.B. Pandey
R/o Gali No. 8, Wazirabad, Delhi
Also at: Under New Godown
Thakurbadi, Neem Tree
PS Kotwali, District Gaya, Bihar
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 18
7. Mohd. Moin Akhtar
S/o Mohd. Aslam
R/o A-161, Dhaka, Manzil Cottage
Kingsway Camp, Mukherjee Nagar
Delhi
8. Rajiv Singh
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh
R/o H. No. 238-39, Ground Floor
D Block, Gandhi Vihar, Timarpur
Delhi
9. Raj Nath Gond
S/o Sh. Raghunath
R/o C-50, Gali No. 6, Wazirabad
Timarpur, Delhi
10. Kuldeep
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand
R/o Gali No. Zero
Village Wazirabad, Delhi
11. Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Gajender Singh
R/o F-286, 2nd Floor
Gandhi Vihar, Delhi
Also at: H. No. 97, Sector 6
Bhadurgarh, Haryana
12. Manish Kumar
S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o 22/2, Indra Vikas Colony
near Nirkari Colony, Delhi
13. Akshay Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Mahipal
R/o Village Chand Pura
PO Kharkoda, District Meerut
U.P.
Also at: H. No. C-50, Gali No. 6
Wazirabad, Timarpur, Delhi
14. Shailender Pandey
S/o Sh. Vinay Pandey
R/o Village Chhapia Pahdy
Post Muhdarwa, Dist. Basti, U.P.
Also at: Gali No. 12, Wazirabad
Timarpur, Delhi
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 18
15. Nitin Shakya
S/o Sh. Vijay Shakya
R/o B-289-90, Gandhi Vihar
Timarpur, Delhi
16. Ravi Sharma
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma
R/o Gali No. 6, Wazirabad, Delhi
17. Mohit Kumar (PO)
S/o Sh. Krishna Dev Prasad
R/o D-Block, 53, Gandhi Vihar
Timarpur, Delhi
18. Pardeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o Gali No. 8/1, Wazirabad, Delhi
19. Sandeep Pal
S/o Sh. Jeet Singh
R/o Gali No. 12, Wazirabad
Delhi
20. Chandan Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Sudhir Singh
R/o Gali No. 1, Wazirabad, Delhi
Date of Institution : 02.02.2021
Date of Arguments : 16.08.2023
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2023
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.The case of the prosecution, as stated in the charge-sheet, is that on 24.07.2014 at about 08.00 p.m. at Gandhi Vihar Traffic Light, near CNG Pump, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, around 700 to 800 students were raising slogans against change in syllabus of UPSC and obstructing traffic. In the meanwhile, SHO, PS Timarpur alongwith police officials reached there. He tried to pacify the protesting students. However, they continued raising slogans and pelted stones at police officials. At that time, SHO, PS Civil Lines, Burari and Maurice Nagar alongwith police force also reached there. They also tried to pacify the students. However, the students became more aggressive and started pelting stones.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 18
2. The case of the prosecution is that the protesting students had broken glasses of two buses i.e. HP 12F 7411 and HP 53A 1941 and set them on fire. They also damaged ERV No. DL 1CM 4580 and set a private motorcycle on fire. One person, namely, Prem sustained injury on account of pelting of stones. Driver of Himachal Roadways Bus, namely, Jeewan Prakash also sustained injuries. The protesting students proceeded to set other vehicles on fire. Thereafter, SHO, PS Civil Lines and PS Timarpur fired tear-shells to scatter the protesting students. In the meanwhile, CP Reserve Force reached there. The police officials apprehended 12 accused persons, as under:
SL. NO. NAMES
1. Vikas Pandey
2. Chandan Kumar Singh
3. Pradeep Kumar
4. Ashok Kumar
5. Sandeep
6. Raj Nath Gond
7. Kuldeep
8. Md. Moin Akhtar
9. Mohit Kumar
10. Rajiv Singh
11. Arun Kumar
12 Manish Kumar
3. The case of the prosecution is that the protesting students entered into lanes of Gandhi Vihar, Delhi and again started pelting stones. SHO, PS Timarpur, Insp. Rajender Kumar, SHO, PS Lahori Gate, HC Prem Pal, Ct. Nagesh, Ct. Ashok, HC Ramesh Pal Singh, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Munnu Yadav, Ct. Amit and Ct. Sudhir sustained injuries due to pelting of stones.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 18
4. In order to control the protesting students, ACP, Sarai Rohilla fired two tear-shells and SHO, PS Timarpur fired eight tear-shells. They dispersed the crowd. The police officials apprehended 8 accused persons, as under:
SL. NO. NAMES
1. Nitin Shakya
2. Rajesh Kumar
3. Naveen Kumar Shah
4. Akshay Kumar
5. Bijender Singh
6. Ravi Sharma
7. Shailender Pandey
8. Kamlesh Kumar Thakur
5. SI Yogesh Kumar made endorsement for registration of case under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/ 148/149 IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act.
6. HC Shiv Kumar, Duty Officer, PS Timarpur registered FIR and assigned further investigation of the case to Insp. Jagdish Rai.
7. During investigation, Insp. Jagdish Rai prepared site plan of the place of incident and recorded statement of the witnesses. Crime Team inspected the place of incident. He seized bricks and stones, two buses i.e. HP 12F 7411 and HP 53A 1941, motorcycle No. DL 8S NB 9454 and ERV No. DL 1CM 4580. He arrested the accused persons. He deposited the case property in police malkhana. He collected MLCs of the injured persons. He got mechanical inspection of the damaged vehicles conducted. Thereafter, SI Surender investigated the case.
8. During investigation, SI Surender collected opinion qua nature of injury of the injured persons. Besides Prem Kumar, other persons sustained 'simple' injuries.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 18
9. SI Amit Bhardwaj conducted further investigation. He collected photographs from Crime Team. He searched other students involved in the incident. However, he could not obtain any clue regarding them. He obtained complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. from senior officers. On completion of investigation, he charge-sheeted the accused persons under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act.
10. I have heard Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Mohd. Moin Akhtar, Rajiv Singh, Nitin Shakya, Ravi Sharma and Sandeep Pal, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Bijender Singh, Kamlesh Kumar Thakur, Raj Nath Gond, Kuldeep, Akshay Kumar, Shailender Pandey, Pardeep Kumar and Chandan Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate and Mr. Amjad Hussain, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Vikash Pandey and Manish Kumar and perused written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that there is sufficient material prima facie disclosing that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and they used force or violence in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. He contended that the accused persons were apprehended at the place of incident. He contended that unlawful assembly pelted stones at police officials and general public and damaged roadways buses and police vehicles and also set them on fire. He contended that police officials and general public sustained injuries. He contended that Mr. Prem, a kanwadiya, sustained 'grievous' injury.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 18
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the accused persons obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions and damaged public property. He contended that injury reports of the injured persons is on the file. He contended that mechanical inspection report pertaining to damage to public and private vehicles is also on file. He contended that statement of the witnesses comprising police officials and public witnesses alongwith material on record, as stated above, disclosed commission of offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons contended that there is no prima facie material against the accused persons. They contended that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. They contended that the material on record does not give rise to grave suspicion. They contended that the police recorded cyclostyled statement of the witnesses. They contended that there is no material to prove presence of the accused persons at the place of the incident. They contended that there is no CCTV footage, Call Detail Record or video pertaining to the incident. They contended that there is no material disclosing commission of offence under Section 308 IPC. They contended that no deadly weapon was used during demonstration. They contended that there is no Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused persons.
14. Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate for the accused Manish Kumar and Vikas Pandey contended that the said accused persons were not present at the place of the incident. He contended that the said accused persons were not part of unlawful assembly which caused injuries to the police officials.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 18
15. Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate for the accused Manish Kumar and Vikas Pandey contended that the public witnesses have not identified the accused Manish Kumar and Vikas Pandey. He contended that the said accused persons are officiating senior positions in State Civil Services and there is no credible material qua them. He contended that charges cannot be framed in a mechanical manner and the Court must sift the material in order to ascertain existence of a prima facie case. He prayed for discharge of the accused Manish Kumar and Vikas Pandey.
16. Section 227 Cr.P.C. governing discharge of an accused is, as under:
"227. Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
17. Section 228 Cr.P.C. governing framing of charge is, as under:
"228. Framing of charge.-(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 18 Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
18. It would be appropriate to have a glimpse of legal principles governing the issue of charge.
19. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India enumerated the scope and ambit of Section 227 Cr.P.C., as under:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.
By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 18 (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
20. In Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 14 SCC 207, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India emphasized need of application of judicial mind to determine the potentiality of the case for a trial, as under:
"18. It is, thus clear that while considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the evidence."
21. The issue before this Court is whether there is material on record disclosing prima facie commission of offences against the accused persons.
22. On examination of the charge-sheet, recovery memos and relevant statutory provisions, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2014 at about 08.00 p.m., 700-800 the students were protesting against syllabus of UPSC at Gandhi Vihar Traffic Light, near CNG Pump, Outer Ring Road, Delhi and obstructing the traffic. SHO, PS Timarpur tried to pacify the students. However, they started pelting stones at police officials. Thereafter, additional police force also reached there and efforts were made to pacify the students. However, they became more aggressive and pelted stones at police officials and caused damage two buses of Himachal Pradesh State Roadways, one police vehicle and one private motorcycle and set them on fire.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 18
23. One person, namely, Prem sustained injury on his face and Mr. Jeewan Prakash, driver of Himachal Pradesh State Roadways Bus sustained injury. Police officials fired tear- shells and apprehended 12 students, as stated above. The students ran into lanes of Gandhi Vihar and again started pelting stones and caused injuries to police officials, as stated above. Police officials apprehended 8 students, as stated above.
24. Unlawful assembly is defined under Section 141 IPC, as under:
"141. Unlawful assembly An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is - First - To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, [the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second - To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do."
25. Section 142 IPC is, as under:
"142. Being member of unlawful assembly Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly."
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 18
26. Offence of rioting is defined under Section 146 IPC, as under:
"146. Rioting Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting."
27. Punishment for rioting is provided under Section 147 IPC, as under:
"147. Punishment for rioting Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
28. Rioting with deadly weapon is defined under Section 148 IPC, as under:
"148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
29. Vicarious liability of every member of an unlawful assembly is defined under Section 149 IPC, as under:
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
30. The issue before the Court is whether the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly and if so, whether the said unlawful assembly did rioting with deadly weapons and the accused persons are vicariously liable for the acts of unlawful assembly committed in prosecution of the common object.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 18
31. A plain reading of Section 149 IPC would show that the provision is in two parts. The first part deals with cases in which an offence is committed by any member of the assembly "in prosecution of the common object" of that assembly. The second part deals with cases where the commission of a given offence is not by itself the common object of the unlawful assembly but members of such assembly "knew that the same is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly".
32. The common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behavior of the assembly at or before the commission of offence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case.
33. In order to frame a charge under Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must bring material on record to show that the accused persons had shared a common object with other members of the alleged unlawful assembly. The prosecution must bring material demonstrating that the accused persons shared a common object and were part of an unlawful assembly and that they were aware of the offences likely to be committed is to achieve the said common object.
34. In Musa Khan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (1) SCC 733, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"5.....It is well settled that a mere innocent presence in an assembly of persons, as for example a bystander, does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Thus, a court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 18 activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all these stages. Such an evidence is wholly lacking in this case where the evidence merely shows that some of the accused were members of the unlawful assembly at one particular stage but not at another....."
35. In Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"31.....All the same, when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large (as in this case) and many persons would have witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as a participant in the rioting....."
36. In Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"16.....where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable....."
37. As already noted above, about 700-800 students were protesting against the change of syllabus of UPSC. They were raising slogans and obstructing traffic. On being asked by the police officials to disperse from the public way, they started pelting stones and damaged public and private vehicles and set them on fire. They also caused injuries to police officials and public persons.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 18
38. Therefore, there is no doubt that assembly of the protesting students was an unlawful assembly and it used force and violence in prosecution of its common object i.e. damage to public and private vehicles and obstruction to traffic etc.
39. The next issue is whether the accused persons were part of the said unlawful assembly, and whether they can be made vicariously liable for the acts of the said unlawful assembly.
40. The material pertaining to connection of the accused persons to the unlawful assembly is the statements of the police officials and public persons, as under:
Sl. No. Accused Identified by Identified by
1. Vikas Pandey Insp. Rajender Kumar
2. Chandan Kumar Singh Ajay Kumar
3. Pradeep Kumar Wali Mohd.
4. Ashok Kumar Prem
5. Sandeep Ajay Kumar
6. Raj Nath Gond HC Prem Pal
7. Kuldeep Ct. Sudhir
8. Md. Moin Akhtar HC Ramesh Pal Singh
9. Mohit Kumar Wali Mohd.
10. Rajiv Singh Jeewan Prakash
11. Arun Kumar Ct. Monu Yadav Ct. Bijender
12. Manish Kumar Ct. Monu Yadav Ct. Bijender
13. Nitin Shakya Sanjay Kumar
14. Rajesh Kumar Insp. Rajesh Malhotra
15. Naveen Kumar Shah Ct. Amit Kumar
16. Akshay Kumar Singh Ct. Ashok Kumar
17. Bijender Singh Insp. Rajesh Malhotra
18. Ravi Sharma Sanjay Kumar
19. Shailender Pandey Ct. Nagesh Kumar
20. Kamlesh Kumar Thakur Insp. Rajender Kumar FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 18
41. It is, therefore, evident that besides the accused Arun Kumar and Manish Kumar, the other accused persons were identified by only one witness.
42. As regards the allegations made in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that they have stated that the accused persons were amongst the protesting students who damaged public and private vehicles and pelted stones. They have not attributed any overt act to the accused persons. Besides their physical presence, there is no material about actual participation of the accused persons in the incident. There is no material that the accused persons knew that the offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. There is no material disclosing culpable conduct of the accused persons. They were not carrying any arm or deadly weapon or stone or any other material to torch the vehicles. There is no material that the accused persons shared a common object with other members of unlawful assembly. Besides passive presence of the accused persons, there is no evidence to connect them with the unlawful assembly or the offences of mischief by fire or damage to public property or injuries to public or police officials.
43. Having regard to the circumstances in which the incidents had taken place and absence of any overt act of the accused persons, as well as want of identification of the accused persons, at least by two or more witnesses, there is no evidence to connect the accused persons with the offences in question. There is no prima facie material that the accused persons were part of the unlawful assembly and they were aware of the offences likely to be committed by the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object.
FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 18
44. In that view, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient grounds or reasons to proceed against the accused persons for committing offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.
CONCLUSION:
45. Accordingly, the accused persons are discharged from offences under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 16:41:09 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 13th October, 2023 DJ (Commercial-11) (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 18 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
CNR No. DLCT01-001545-2021 SC No. 74/2021 FIR No. 493/2014 PS Timarpur 13.10.2023 Present : Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Mohd. Moin Akhtar, Rajiv Singh, Nitin Shakya, Ravi Sharma and Sandeep Pal.
Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Bijender Singh, Kamlesh Kumar Thakur, Raj Nath Gond, Kuldeep, Akshay Kumar, Shailender Pandey, Pardeep Kumar and Chandan Kumar Singh.
Mr. Amjad Hussain, Advocate for the accused persons, namely, Vikas Pandey and Manish Kumar.
Vide separate order on charge, the accused persons are discharged from offences under Section 186/353/332/308/427/147/148/149 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act. The accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court. As requested, requisite bond be furnished within four weeks. Bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months. File be Digitally signed consigned to record room. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.13 16:41:22 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II DJ (Commercial-11) Central, THC, Delhi 13.10.2023 FIR No. 493/2014 State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 18